'SIR breathes life into Constitution': Supreme Court upholds EC's roll revision exercise — top quotes

Here's what the court said:

• “When the statute itself authorises a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded and in such manner as the Election Commission may deem fit, the impugned exercise cannot be invalidated merely because it does not conform in every respect to the ordinary modalities contemplated for routine revision.”
• Holding that the ECI had not acted in excess of its powers, the Supreme Court observed that the SIR exercise “breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3)” of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• “Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process,” the CJI Kant-led Bench said.
• “We are unable to conclude that the impugned exercise is a process resorted to solely for administrative convenience. On the contrary, we hold that the electoral SIR advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections,” the judgment said.
• “We are therefore satisfied that the impugned exercise meets the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion.”
• “Any verification exercise necessarily requires a structured framework. In that context, the prescription of a set of documents is intended to ensure administrative consistency and evidentiary reliability,” the judgment said.
• “Upon detailed consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, in view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship."
• “It does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India. It merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions stand fulfilled.”
• “In the event the competent authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, their names shall be restored to the electoral rolls,” the CJI Kant-led Bench directed.